Search for: "Doe v. United States of America et al"
Results 401 - 420
of 595
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Mar 2011, 8:27 am
”); see also United States v. [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 3:42 am
The Walt Disney Company, et. al. [read post]
4 Mar 2011, 9:11 am
HolderDocket: 10-545Issue(s): (1) Does the Progress Clause of the United States Constitution, Article I, § 8, cl. 8, prohibit Congress from taking works out of the public domain? [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 1:34 pm
(2) Does Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution? [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 9:52 am
United States (10-5296) and Vazquez v. [read post]
18 Feb 2011, 1:38 am
(2) Does Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution? [read post]
15 Feb 2011, 12:25 pm
Banc of America, et al., 2010 WL 184312 (S.D.N.Y. [read post]
31 Jan 2011, 3:19 am
Morris, PBS, et al. [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 1:04 pm
[et al.]. [read post]
21 Jan 2011, 8:03 pm
VICTORIA GROUP SERVICES, LLC, et al., Appellees. 3rd District. [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 3:01 pm
(United States v. [read post]
14 Jan 2011, 3:35 am
Microsoft Corporation, et. al. [read post]
10 Jan 2011, 6:46 am
Such ambivalence.Slavery existed in all the colonies when the Revolution created the United States. [read post]
10 Jan 2011, 6:46 am
Such ambivalence.Slavery existed in all the colonies when the Revolution created the United States. [read post]
7 Jan 2011, 6:44 am
California Pharmacists AssociationDocket: 09-1158Issue(s): (1) Whether Medicaid recipients and providers may maintain a cause of action under the Supremacy Clause to enforce § 1396a(a)(30)(A) by asserting that the provision preempts a state law reducing reimbursement rates; and (2) whether a state law reducing Medicaid reimbursement to providers may be held preempted by § 1396a(a)(30)(A) based on requirements that do not appear in the text of the statute.Certiorari-Stage… [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 10:49 am
Co. et. al. [read post]
23 Dec 2010, 9:38 pm
Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc et al (Docket Report) District Court C D California: For divided infringement, proof of agency not required to establish ‘direction and control’: Ronald A Katz Technology Licensing L P v. [read post]
14 Dec 2010, 8:41 pm
Oumar Issa, et. al., SDNY, shows the three are still in custody and the case hasn't even gotten past the discovery phase to the filing of pre-trial motions.) [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 5:01 am
(Docket Report) District Court N D California: False advertisement through third parties may constitute false marking, but facts must be pled with particularity: United States of America, ex. rel., et. al. v. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 5:43 am
" United States of America, ex. rel., et. al. v. [read post]
